Was actor Robert Blake acquitted of killing his wife
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Robert Blake was criminally acquitted in the 2005 trial over the 2001 shooting death of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, when a Los Angeles jury found him not guilty of murder and one solicitation count and deadlocked on a second solicitation count that was subsequently dropped [1] [2] [3]. Though cleared in criminal court, Blake was later found civilly liable for Bakley’s death and ordered to pay $30 million to her children, a judgment that contrasted with the criminal verdict and left the underlying killing officially unsolved [1] [4].
1. The criminal verdict: acquittal after a high‑profile trial
After a roughly three‑month, widely publicized criminal trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, a 12‑member jury acquitted Robert Blake of murdering Bonny Lee Bakley on March 16, 2005; jurors reported disbelief of key prosecution witnesses and cited gaps in the prosecution’s case during deliberations that lasted nine days [1] [2] [5]. The jury found him not guilty of murder and of one solicitation charge, while a second solicitation count was effectively abandoned when jurors were reported to be deadlocked 11–1 in favor of acquittal before the judge dismissed it [3] [5].
2. Why jurors cleared him: credibility and forensic gaps
The acquittal rested on a combination of witness credibility problems and forensic ambiguity: two former stuntmen who testified that Blake tried to hire them to kill Bakley were impeached in cross‑examination for drug use and unreliability, and defense testimony about expected levels of gunshot‑residue on a shooter’s hands undercut the prosecution’s forensic narrative, while prosecutors never linked the murder weapon conclusively to Blake or placed him at the scene with eyewitness or DNA evidence [1] [2] [6]. Jurors and alternates later said the case was largely circumstantial, that the lead witnesses were not believable, and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Blake fired the fatal shots or arranged the killing [2] [7].
3. The civil outcome: found liable despite criminal acquittal
Parallel to the criminal case’s not‑guilty finding, a civil jury later concluded Blake was responsible for Bakley’s death and ordered him to pay $30 million to her children — a lower evidentiary standard in civil court (preponderance of evidence) produced a vastly different legal outcome that bankrupted the actor and shaped public perception even after the criminal acquittal [1] [8] [4].
4. Unresolved questions and the official status of the case
Despite the criminal acquittal and civil judgment, Bakley’s murder remains officially unsolved: no criminal conviction identified a shooter, the murder weapon recovered could not be tied to Blake, and investigators and commentators continue to note unanswered forensic and circumstantial questions that prevented a criminal conviction [9] [6] [10]. Reporting and legacy pieces—across the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, PBS and true‑crime outlets—consistently frame the criminal verdict as an acquittal but underscore that the factual truth of who pulled the trigger remains disputed and legally unresolved [2] [9] [8].
5. Verdict versus public memory: competing narratives
The simple legal answer—Blake was acquitted—sits beside two competing narratives in public memory: one that emphasizes the jury’s not‑guilty verdict and the difficulty of proving murder beyond reasonable doubt, and another that points to the civil liability finding, the lurid trial details, and lingering doubts about motive and conduct, which together ensured the case would tarnish Blake’s reputation even without a criminal conviction [5] [4] [7]. Reporting across History, Biography, BBC and A&E mirrors this split: criminal acquittal is the documented legal fact, while the civil judgment and unresolved forensics explain why many observers continue to treat the case as unsettled [1] [11] [10].